backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by bobbybarber.. on Mar 8 at 7:16 PM
But now evidence is no longer available and in custody of the Justice Department

Last July, U.S. President Bush blocked an internal investigation into the National Security Agency's (NSA) wire tapping program. The block by Bush resulted in a flurry of controversy and according to experts, made the NSA's program questionable in the eyes of citizens.

Now, a Washington D.C. attorney named Wendell Belew is suing the U.S. government for wiretapping without a warrant, and he has the evidence to prove it. Wendell received a "top-secret" report from fellow al-Haramain attorney Lynne Bernabei, which was retrieved from the Treasury Department's Washington D.C. headquarters.

After reviewing the documents, Belew was astonished to see that his phone calls to co-counsel Asim Ghafoor and a Saudi-based charity official named Soliman al-Buthi were all logged and detailed. After some time, the FBI showed up at Belew's door, demanding that he return the documents, which by this time had already been copied and given to Washington Post reported David Ottaway.

Lawyers representing Belew and Al-Haramain are now seeking damages of $1 million for each person for illegal wiretapping by the NSA. Interestingly, Dean Boyd, a representative for the government wrote "the government has never confirmed or denied whether plaintiffs were surveilled, much less surveilled under the Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Out of all previous court cases against illegal spying, Belew's case may blow the doors open for more cases because he actually has official evidence. Interestingly, after Belew and his lawyers filed their cases, the official documents were taken out of the courthouse and into a Justice Department-controlled secure room. Now, Belew's lawyers are no longer allowed to see those documents and are only allowed to file declarations based on their memory of the contents.

Last year the NSA and AT&T were accused to illegally wiretapping major internet and phone routers after PDF documents revealed that alleged of NSA wiretapping without having proper warrants.  The source of this latest wiretapping incident is unknown, though the evidence suggests the AT&T wiretap had the same capabilities as the one suggested by Belew.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Checks and Balances
By dreddly on 3/6/2007 11:13:07 AM , Rating: 5
What is the point of having a system based on checks and balances if one branch can declare issues of national security and override the press, individual freedom and the rule of law?

What is national security protecting when it directly contradicts with the 'way of life' that it is safeguarding?




RE: Checks and Balances
By fic2 on 3/6/2007 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 4
Excellent. But, your phones and email are probably now being tapped because you disagree with our benevolent dictator.


RE: Checks and Balances
By Rollomite on 3/6/2007 11:35:37 AM , Rating: 1
Let's hear it for the Patriot Act!!! Who needs rights anyway? <<sarcasm>>

Rollo


RE: Checks and Balances
By ElJefe69 on 3/6/2007 3:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
patriot act is an act done by non-patriots who did not serve this country as a patriot nor do they care about patriotism.

Spock: "Fascinating"


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 3
"What is the point of having a system based on checks and balances if one branch can declare issues of national security and override the press, individual freedom and the rule of law?"

Override the press? The press is not part of our government, nor would they ever want to be. The "press" in this country has gone from a system that pursues actual relevant news and reports it in an unbiased manner for the sake of news, to corporations that use the news to drive ratings. Personally, I'm so fed up with the "news" agencies in this country that anything the Gov. can do to cut them out I'm all for. When the "news" agencies actually start reporting both sides of the news, in an unbiased way, then maybe they'll be worth considering again.

"What is national security protecting when it directly contradicts with the 'way of life' that it is safeguarding?"

No 'way of life' was contradicted with the wiretapping. Until the irresponsible news organization that reported on it blabbed to the whole world "Look terrorists, we're doing this now too! Now you can even be more careful trying to kill us!", everyone was going about in their carefree American happy dumb ways, including the people being wiretapped.

Lets keep it real here...the govenment could wiretap all of us and we'd never know the difference. I'm not exactly fond of someone not me or my intended receiver having access to my communications, but if it's so massively important to national security that the NSA know that I think the girl who works at the local Quizno's is hot, then I guess I'll have to "sacrifice" my liberties and let them find out about it.

People are blowing stuff like this way out of proportion...

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 3
Well said. Do some of you people honestly believe the government has the time and resources to go around just tapping anyone and everyones phone and internet connection? They find people they believe to possibly be involved in something, and check them out. If nothing is out of the ordinary, they move on. As is obviously the case with this attorney since they never called him in for questioning.

I personally have no problems with the government monitoring anyone they feel they need to. They're not getting information on people and publicly defaming them or anything. I'm someone who's met the power of big brother with a gun pointed at me and still find it ok. You people need to get a grip on reality and stop crying foul anytime something is done you don't like. Because the fact is that if they didn't do this kind of thing, and another 9/11 did happen, you'd blame Bush and the government for not doing enough. So personally, I'd rather them do it and laugh at you people instead of having an even more increased chance of something like 9/11 happening again.

Personally I think that the person who removed those documents from a government building should be thrown in jail for theft of confidential government documents.

And media. SHUT UP! You don't seem to get that all these news stories you do does nothing but inform terrorists more on what we're doing to stop them or give them ideas on what to do and how to do it.

"Tonight at 9. We show you how to build a bomb big enough to destroy a city with chemicals under the sink. Potential terrorists, get out your note pads."

or

"Tonight at 11. We show you how many men is needed to take over a nuclear power plant. The guards are located here, here, and here. Their shifts changes are at these times. Please don't use any of this info to actually try and take over a power plant."


RE: Checks and Balances
By wrekd on 3/6/2007 1:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not with why the government is doing this.

The problem is when (if at all) do they stop. The problem is the precedence it sets.

The more this is done, the easier it becomes. So all the terrorists are dead...will the government give up this power? Or will they next turn to finding child molesters, drug dealers or political idealists? Give the government an inch and they will take much more when it suits their needs.

I mentioned molesters earlier because of a TG Daily article I read recently.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/03/02/child_porn_email...

This also could be abused. I could pay some hack to send some child porn to "mine enemies" and watch as their lives are turned upside-down. The allegations alone would ruin someone. Not to mention the court costs and heartache.


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 1:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
For the example you just mentioned I can truthfully say that this is not true. I have a unique perspective with that exact issue (not something that happened to me directly though). True if it were to happen to someone far more important than to the person I knew, it might be different since the media (like everything) would blow it out of proportion even once proved false.

When it comes to child porn, they're more looking for you actively seeking it. If it shows up in your spam email folder out of the blue, thats not flagged as you look at it. They're going to go after the guy that sent it. Now if it starts showing up all the time, then they probably will look into it.

And news from Los Angeles means less to me than used toilet paper.


RE: Checks and Balances
By Oregonian2 on 3/6/2007 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well said. Do some of you people honestly believe the government has the time and resources to go around just tapping anyone and everyones phone and internet connection? They find people they believe to possibly be involved in something, and check them out. If nothing is out of the ordinary, they move on. As is obviously the case with this attorney since they never called him in for questioning.


That's not the problem. Wire-taps are fine when justified. Problem is that there are procedures in place to keep those with the power to wiretap from becoming corrupt and wiretapping for political purposes, or to check up on one's girlfriend, etc. Power corrupts. The procedures in place allow for wiretaps but to have some accountability to cut down on corruption. That's why the power to do wiretaps ad-hoc whenever some agency wants to isn't something that can be permitted. May do it for good reasons now, but once they have unconstrained power, it'll go bad. Guaranteed if people are involved.


RE: Checks and Balances
By THEiNTERNETS on 3/6/2007 12:54:51 PM , Rating: 4
As much as I agree with you (which is actually quite a lot), the reality is that it doesn't matter that illegal wiretapping doesn't actually effect our day-to-day lives--the reason people are up-in-arms about it is because it has the potential to be abused by the government to hurt people. The whole idea of forcing judicial oversight onto programs like these is so that people can't use wiretapping for political purposes. This isn't so far-fetched, look at the article DT has on China today. They are a direct result of a government who doesn't believe in the freedom of press/free expression.

I guess what I'm wondering is why we can't have the NSA tracking terrorists without it being done within legal bounds--considering the administration has changed the way the wiretapping works to do just that, they may actually agree with me. This whole article is really just pointing out how the guise of "National Security" can be used to stonewall the press from publishing anything particularly damaging to the administration.


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 1:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Even if its done within "legal bounds" there still exists the same potential for abuse.


RE: Checks and Balances
By derwin on 3/6/2007 1:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
The potential for abuse is never removed, but when a judge signs off on a wire tap, its less likely that he signed off on a wire tap for the democratic headquarters at watergate hotel. When the discression is entierly up to the executive branch, well, you know what has happened before.


RE: Checks and Balances
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2007 3:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
The "potential for abuse" I was talking about is for wiretaps that are for personal or political gains. Those kinds of wiretaps would be done by someone without a judges signature even if one was required. So those kind of wiretaps will happen regardless of the procedures in place.

I'd rather the process for the NSA, FBI, or CIA to get a tap on someone be extremely quick so they can monitor people before they've potentially done something rather than after. Throwing a judge into it will make it possibly take days rather than hours. In those guys business, more time to be able to do their jobs means a higher potential body count. Also it frees them to quickly check on someone and move on to the next one if they find no foul play.


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 2:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't so far-fetched, look at the article DT has on China today. They are a direct result of a government who doesn't believe in the freedom of press/free expression.


This is a completely different issue though. At no point in the NSA wiretapping did the US federal government say too those it was looking into, "Hey, we don't like what you're saying. You are forbidden to say that anymore."...and then apply it to 1.8 million or whoever else people. The NSA wiretapping was looking into people suspected as terrorist, or communicating with terrorists, so as to protect us (I'm in the US) from people trying to kill us. China is censoring people just because it wants to control the public aspect of peoples lives...essentially they want to be god.

quote:
I guess what I'm wondering is why we can't have the NSA tracking terrorists without it being done within legal bounds


Because maybe the legal bounds are still to restrictive? Maybe they don't work fast enough? Maybe the people it has to go through simply cannot be trusted with sensitive national information - gee, how'd this leak again???

quote:
. This whole article is really just pointing out how the guise of "National Security" can be used to stonewall the press from publishing anything particularly damaging to the administration


This article points out that they should find who leaked the info to the press that got started looking into this, and jail them for life...along with removing that news organization from the list of invited news outlets to White House and State Dept. functions. I can understand al-Jezeera (or however it's spelled) publishing that info...how an American news outlet could publish it, knowing it'd blow a sensitive operation open, it's basically treasoness. We have people out in the field that are basically hanging out there risking it all everyday, and then some reporter - for ratings and so they could feel special - pushes out how we're spying on people trying to kill us. Just amazing when you think about it...

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By Fritzr on 3/6/2007 10:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As much as I agree with you (which is actually quite a lot), the reality is that it doesn't matter that illegal wiretapping doesn't actually effect our day-to-day lives


3 words -- Senator Joseph McCarthey


RE: Checks and Balances
By ElJefe69 on 3/6/2007 3:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
the government is a person that is not above the law. The executive branch is one person, the President. This president is considered one person under the law similar to a corporation but more ethically held to the highest spirit of the law. The president is not a member of the armed services or security groups. He is so because he is to be a citizen at all times. This citizen is in charge of the military and all military-like functions. The people of the military as well as the personage of the military as a unified being has less rights and is lower in class than the citizens of the country. The justice departments, NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc., are all arms of the President himself. In no manner is the president or his groups allowed to operate outside of the law that is held to citizens or outside the specific parameters of the Constitution.

You, as a citizen are only allowed to tap your own phone if you yourself are one of the two parties who are involved in the conversation. Court orders must be used for all citizens and service people of this country in order to tape and listen to conversations in a third party manner.

I dont want to hear any of this bullshit about "sacrifice" or "they have the right" or "times of war". These lawsuits will be filed and they will win, hopefully. George W. Bush, the puppet/figurehead of twisted egotists and money hungry pigs, has brainwashed the public into assuming that wartime ='s no definition of citizen rights. If Clinton did these things, he would have been impeached and then arrested, tried and jailed. Figureheads do not get any heat though as they are dupes for those who make sure everything goes well without a fault.


RE: Checks and Balances
By chucky2 on 3/6/2007 4:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
You know, until your last paragraph, you sounded very sane...then it just all fell apart.

It's really possible, in fact probable, that had Clinton not been getting head in the Oval Office, and instead been doing his job, that 9/11 would have never happened, and Bush wouldn't have to result to such measures so we can play catch up to the terrorists.

The single biggest threat to national security is not illegal wiretaps, sloppy border security, or even lax airport security: It's people like you who do not understand that the nut jobs are going to stop at nothing to harm us, to them it's an honor to kill us.

When are you and people like you going to start waking up and realizing that having each and every right as you had it pre-9/11 may not be possible in this day and age, just like carrying around a six-shooter strapped to your leg in the Wild West was totally acceptable and is not now?

I love how you spout off about no civilian rights when everything you did in your life pre-9/11 you can still do now...the War on Terror as it's been termed has caused the average citizen to wait in line at the airport a little longer...that's about it.

What can you not do now that you couldn't before, except carry liguids onto planes?

Chuck


RE: Checks and Balances
By NaughtyGeek on 3/6/2007 5:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
"He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin

If you don't get the meaning behind the above statement, then it's easy to see why you will defend these actions. As for everyone who says "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about," that's the same mentality that empowered and emboldened Hitler to conquer most of Europe before anyone finally said enough. Just because it doesn't affect you today doesn't mean it won't tomorrow.

When they came for the terrorists, I did not speak out;
I was not a terrorist.

"When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Martin Niemöller